Sikkim Court July 2005 Judgments
Sanjoy Menon Rajan Vs. State of Sikkim and ors.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jul-20-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ2311
ORDERA.P. Subba, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Sanjoy Menon Rajan, a British citizen of Indian origin under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 52 (3)05 registered at Sadar Police Station, Gangtok, Sikkim under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and all related criminal proceedings arising therefrom.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition, briefly stated, are as follows :-The petitioner after having completed his studies joined British Petroleum, a multinational concern, in the year 1993 and since the year 2004 he has been posted at Hong Kong as a Compliance Advisor, British Petroleum, Asia. During the course of his professional trip to Calcutta in the year 2003, he met Ms. Peggyla Wangdi Bhutia alias Sonam (respondent No. 5). After few meetings, they became friends and their friendship ultimately culminated into a marriage. The marriage was solemnized at Gangtok on 18th October, 2004 as...
Tag this Judgment!Bishnu Kumar Rai Vs. Minor Mahendra Bir Lama and ors.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jul-18-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Sik33
N.S. Singh, Actg. C.J.1. The judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, South and West at Namchi, South Sikkim in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2002 is the subject matter under challenge in this appeal.2. The facts of the case, in a short compass, arc as follows :--The two minor plaintiffs, namely, Mahendra Bir Lama and Shoundarya Bir Lama represented by their mother and legal guardian Smt. Anjita Lama, the principal respondents herein, Instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 8 of 2000 before the Court below for the following reliefs :--- '(a) A decree declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the schedule 'B' property/suit land;(B) Declaration to the effect: that the defendant No. 1 has no right, title and interest over the suit property;(c) A decree to the effect that the defendant No. 2 had or has no right to sell the property mentioned in schedule 'B' as the plaintiffs are the joint owners of the said property;(d) A decree restraining the defendant No. 1 f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›